Thread: Ron Paul
View Single Post
      05-06-2011, 05:01 PM   #48
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997gtx View Post
Hah. No trap. Just looking for your understanding of the topics and seeing how that relates to your opinion on them.



You forgot about the SECOND mention (hence the "s" in "clause(s)" in my question).

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...



No - this is not a simple topic. Your interpretation of it is simple. It's an incredibly complex idea, as evidenced by all the Supreme Court decisions surrounding it.

Don't you think that Health Care, for example, is a business that is practiced across state lines?



Here's the problem with this argument. In the part I bolded above: first, saying "now it is used primarily for illegal aliens..." is pure nonsense. Says who? Right-wing blogs? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Now, EVEN if we take that as fact (which is ludicrous), the second half of the bolded part could be said about many things in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment, for example, was designed to help form state-militias to rise up against an oppressive government. Surely, we don't have the need for this now. And if we did, wouldn't a militia be what the police, etc. are today? There is no organized "militia" by random people owning guns. But surely you're not one of those who would say "The 2nd amendment has no use as originally intended, so it should probably be scrapped."



My exact response to each of these would run many pages in length. I can, however, summarize my thoughts on on simply:

(1) Including "general welfare" was a smart move by the Framers because they knew there were things the government would eventually have to provide for that didn't exist yet. Things like schooling, etc...
(2) The Commerce Clause is incredibly complex. And while I can see your point in regards to framers intending a stricter interpretation of it, I tend to side with the Supreme Court's consistent decisions of expanding the power.
(3) Children born here are citizens regardless of their parent's citizen status. This is only an issue because right-wingers don't like illegal immigrants. When white immigrants came over in the 1900's and had children, no one in their right minds would have EVER challenged their citizen-status. This is an affront on a very specific minority in this country, and it's an embarrassment to our Constitution.


Very nice analysis in this post!

It is spot on correct and irrefutable. Thus scottwww will ignore it.